If you want an exciting life, go skydiving with your prospective girlfriend instead of s3x0r. You will live a lot longer and have a lot more fun.

Uhuh...or just pop down to the local clinic, have some blood and urine samples taken and wait a few days. Tada! Either there's nothing wrong with either of you and hence no reason to avoid s3x0ring except choice, religion or fear of conception or the tests will show up positive for something and you're glad you found before stuff started to fall off/rot your brain/etc.

The numbers don't lie. Trying to pretend teenagers will not have sex does not have sex. Teaching abstinence only and restricting access to birth control methods such as is often seen in fundamentally religious communities leads to more teenage pregnancies, abortions and STD's transmitted, not less.

Teaching practices need to promote the ideal circumstances, and count on the opposite. In the case of sexual education, promote abstinence, explain the array of potential consequences (which can occur despite the use of condoms), and make sure they know what their contraceptive options are, as well as how to go about getting them-- After all, even if they don't take this new found knowledge and immediately go out to copulate, this information will still be useful when they get married.

NO religion teaches abstinence as an ideal circumstance.Religions teach abstinence until the person meets another person, and then makes a permanent commitment to that person.Then religions say Go for it!

Many people have major misconceptions about religion and sex, and then make strong statements rooted in ignorance.

Sex is an addiction to anyone who has done it. Once you start, you don't stop.Religions know this, and that's why they say to wait until you found the right person, to not only have sex with, b

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic. Religions perceive sex as a necessary evil, to be used for procreation only. Actually, most religions go even further and condone the concept of love (and by extension sex) only if it subject to some kind of religious regulation mechanism, because anything else gnaws away at the oppressive stranglehold religion has over everyday life. In order to exist, religion needs to have a monopoly on everything fulfilling and meaningful.

I can only speak as a Christian. And from my perspective, you have no idea what you're talking about. The list of activities that the vast majority of Christian woman won't do is very short. The main restriction is having to wait until marriage. After that, there are virtually no restrictions at all. Any restrictions there are have to to with respecting each other and making each other happy.

Sex addiction is not a recognized medical condition, it's a catchphrase invented by tabloid media designed to appeal to stupid people.

I disagree. There's a neurochemical hit humans get from sex. Some people get addicted to this. Most people don't. Just because you're not an alcoholic, it doesn't mean there aren't any alcoholics.

And until you found "the right person", you are required to act as if you're a sexless, joyless, dishonest zombie. You're not even allowed to find out if that person is actually sexually compatible, until ít's too late. Oh, I forget "the right person" has to meet certain requirements of gender and, in many cases, social status. Otherwise, they're obviously not the right person. And once you have declared one person to be "the right person", you can never change your mind, or an invisible sky tyrant will crush your immortal soul for all eternity. Sounds awesome.

There's two things wrong with this attitude. First, I believe it's unrealistic to expect people to wait until their 20s or 30s to get married. If people were getting married right out of high school, it would be far easier to wait until you were married. It was like this in the past and worked. Our present society is broken. And don't try to tell me that 18 year old kids haven't experienced enough to know who to get married to. It's not like the divorce rate is heavily skewed toward young people. I'd rather my kid get married at 18 and get divorced 6 years later than have a different girlfriend every 6 months for 6 years. Which one is far less likely to get an STD?

And secondly, how difficult is it to have many explicit conversations about this before you get married? What do you like or not like? What's acceptable behavior and what isn't? How often is too much or not enough? The wedding night doesn't have to be a surprise if you don't want it to be.

The numbers don't lie. Trying to pretend teenagers will not have sex does not have sex. Teaching abstinence only and restricting access to birth control methods such as is often seen in fundamentally religious communities leads to more teenage pregnancies, abortions and STD's transmitted, not less.

If you want an exciting life, go skydiving with your prospective girlfriend instead of s3x0r. You will live a lot longer and have a lot more fun.

Flaws with your post:
1. You describe falling out of a plain strapped to another guy as more fun than sex.
2. You neglect the possibility that one can have sex whilst sky-diving.
3. Your logic presumes that it's an either / or. If you're doing so much sky-diving that you don't have time for sex, well...
4. Sky-diving is massively more costly than having sex. If yo

A few weeks back Slashdot ran a story about MRSA and other 'superbugs' being fought in (I believe it was) Finland.

The cool thing about it is, for at least a decade they've been using the same level of sanitation as 50 years ago: steam-cleaning the floors and walls, not using HAND SANITIZER all the time, and letting the place remain a bit "dirtier" than our own hospitals. THEY HAVE THE LOWEST NUMBER OF SUCH CASES.

It makes sense; let the lesser-bugs go, kill with dumber, more-trusted ways that kill ALL the bugs or none at all, and the superbugs have to mate with lesser-bugs. This bleeds out the specialty features.

Meanwhile, everytime someone shakes hands in America, they hit it again with the sanitizer. It's just a never-ending "Germ Olympics" where only the strongest survive.

We really need to consider 'alternative' means like this, and I think you've hit the penis on the head!:>

When I was at the Natural Food store the other day, I noticed a probiotic in the refridgerator display called femdophilus [jarrow.com]. This product has two strains of lactic acid-producing bacteria that are well suited to colonizing the vagina.

I have an anecdote about conventional medical thought on bacteria, fungi, and the vagina. I took a late trip home a few months back, and Loveline came on the radio. I listened fairly regularly a long time ago, so I 'tuned in' for old times' sake.

One caller asked Dr. Drew what he could do about his new girlfriend's horrible vaginal odor. Dr. Drew & Crew were like, "what can you do? Bacterial Vaginosis is hard to treat. Don't say anything."

A later caller wanted to know what she could do about recurrent yeast infections. She'd tried any number of pharmaceutical anti-fungal medications, but the yeast didn't give up.

Knowing a bit about so-called "alternative" medical technology, I picked up the cell phone and called. While I was on hold, another caller came on to say that she had good luck with dealing with teh yeast by using only polyester underwear.

I asked Dr. Drew if it was safe to use yogurt in the vagina. He was like, "sure, but why bother? It's not going to help. These people have tried the most powerful antifungals available, and still have problems. What can yogurt do that drugs cannot?" (this was his sentiment, if not the exact wording).

While Yogurt is a sub-optimal probiotic solution, at least it's getting to the root of the problem. Yeast infections and bacterial vaginosis are caused when "bad" bacterial and fungi are able to establish themselves. No matter how many of these "bad" bacteria/fungi the antibiotic/antifungal is able to take out (99.9999% is not enough), the survivors will be able to quickly reestablish themselves once the pills are stopped.

In alternative medical thinking, "good" bacteria are used to coat the digestive system / skin / vagina with a protective film. When "bad" bacteria come along, there's no room available, so they can't establish a colony.

I don't know if there's been any research about probiotics & gonorrhea. But it'd be an interesting study...

The only interesting drugs we have access to are depressants and stimulants (and the stimulants are watched much more closely than the depressants). If you want psychedelics, you'd be far better served by getting a PhD in organic chemistry.

BTW, is your friend an anesthesiologist? I've always contended that the relatively high rate of drug abuse among anesthesiologists is a result of high-functioning drug users making a rational choice to go into the specialty with the keys to the candy store, and some of them getting in over their head.

This is not "alternative medical thinking." Alternative Medical Thinking would be making a homeopathic yogurt dilution and believing that the spirit of the yogurt was imprinted on the solvent. Doctors (like Dr. Drew) are professionals, just like programmers. They can be wrong, or behind the times, or attention-grabbing without actually being representative of the state of their field.

Treating and encouraging your natural bacterial flora is mainstream medicine, and the yogurt trick for encouraging health "down there" is something a lot of doctors will pass along. I can't speak to your personal experience, but anecdotes =/= mainstream medicine. Your family physician will probably also tell you to eat some yogurt when they give you antibiotics to clear up some strep throat or another nasty bacteria, because it'll help replenish the good bacteria in your gut that you have been eliminating, and keep you from getting a monster case of the runs.

And there are the studies on GM bacteria mouthwashes, to colonize your mouth with bacteria that out-compete your old, cavity-causing flora with something safer. And the studies that show that while we've generally eliminated the bacteria that cause stomach ulcers, we've also caused some downstream problems because those bacteria were part of a balancing act in the ecosystem in there. The bacterial flora are a hot areas of research.

I'm not a doctor, but I have a degree in bioengineering, and I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I smell sarcasm; in my school 90% of the kids firmly believed that abstinence was the best preventive measure, but decided that meant having boatloads of oral sex without condoms. 8% thought that they didn't need condoms, and the remaining 2% were split up by reasonable people and virginal nerds...

Abstinence is the best (well, most effective) preventative measure. It's just that, like the pill and condoms, it fails when people don't actually use it. What your anecdote shows is that there should probably be a greater emphasis placed on STDs and the possibility of infection via oral sex in current sex ed.

What your anecdote shows is that there should probably be a greater emphasis placed on STDs and the possibility of infection via oral sex in current sex ed.

This is not news. The _only_ reason we're even seriously talking about abstinence is because the conservative Christians in this country want to put their heads in the sand and believe it can actually be effective, or if it's not it's some kind of moral failing. They'll fight your proposal tooth and nail because they seriously believe that talking abou

Actually the GPs post is right on, both fail because the practices are incompatible with human nature. Communism can work in small communities where there are significant advantages from altruistic cooperation and interpersonal bonds to discourage abuse (see most primitive hunter-gatherer cultures with communal child-raising and food production), but breaks down in larger environments where gaming the system for personal benefit becomes easier because there is a degree of anonymity which facilitates exploitation of others. Abstinence theoretically is the most effective method of birth control and STD prevention, but it ignores that the urge for sexual reproduction is one of the strongest and most basic drives of the human hormonal and neural systems.

No. Abstinence is 100% effective. If you say you're using abstinence as a birth-control method, and then go have sex, then that's not abstinence.

It's analagous to saying you use condoms, but then don't bother putting them on. That doesn't say anything about the efficacy of condoms, it just says your lying about your birth control method.

What you (probably) mean to say is that abstinence is a hard method to keep to, and that most people fail. That while it might be an effective birth control method, it's not a suitable method for most people. Abstinence works fine, but horny people have trouble using it. Same way as how the pill works fairly well, but forgetful people would have trouble using it. Problem is, abstinence is being sold to teenagers, who are generally not inclined towards self-control.

You know, I wish that somehow "I didn't feel like using method X" weren't counted as failure or improper use in the contraceptive-effectiveness stats. If it weren't, then abstinence would of course be considered 100% effective, but the condom stats would also be a heck of a lot better. As it is, the commonly-cited condom effectiveness stats are all screwed up and seem pretty worthless because, since they don't differentiate between failure of the condom itself, actual improper use, and just not bothering

Please; don't throw around Fox News memes. I mean, if I wanted to believe that the majority of the world [wikimedia.org] was killing itself because of health care it's had, I'd go ahead and let Glenn Beck talk for me too.

Stupid people should die. But if that were true, Fox News would be out of business, wouldn't it?

Besides, it's not my job to demand people die. Are you saying that you want people to die just so you don't have to pay the same goddamn premiums you already pay for private healthcare?

Here is a take on your intellect: You are a fucking retard. Here is the same situation, without health care.

Some asshole sleeps around without a condom, and because they do not have health care, they do not get it treated and spread it to more people, one of whom is your mom.

or

Some asshole sleeps around without a condom, gets gonorrhea, and starts taking antibiotics without medical consultation and so on and so forth until the disease becomes drug-resistant AS THE ARTICLE IS DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW.

or

Some asshole gets a physical at the doctor, finds out about the consequences of having sex without a condom and sees some lovely pictures of herpes/chlamydia/gonorrhea and the asshole starts using a condom from then on and the spread of disease is stopped at a lower cost to society than having X amount of people needing treatment for STIs.

Grow the fuck up, biology and disease prevention have nothing to do with politics.

Wrong. Antibiotics are there to kill off all the non-resistant strains until the amount of bacteria low enough so the immune system can take care of the rest, this way preventing that the resistant strains survive.If an antibiotic treatment suddenly stops before all non-resistant strains were killed, the resistant strains survive and multiply and soon become dominant strains.

some asshole sleeps around without a condom, and you are the one responsible for his health bill.

That was true before the healthcare bill passed. Some asshole that sleeps around without a condom and without insurance could just go to the emergency room, get treated, and the taxpayers have to pay for it. Now that same asshole is required to pay their way or pay a fine. That sounds fair to me.

On the one hand, if you're playing around without wearing a condom, then you're a Darwin Award. On the other hand, this could be exceptionally nasty in third world nations, especially in places where condoms aren't available or expensive. Now it's Nature's Reset Button. And if the people are listening to a religious restriction, saying condom use is against their faith, now we're back to the Darwin angle.

And if the people are listening to a religious restriction, saying condom use is against their faith, now we're back to the Darwin angle.

I wish people would stop peddling this ignorant crap. The Catholic church is against condoms, yes, but it's also against extramarital sex. If you're really an observant Catholic the lack of condoms isn't going to increase your risk of contracting STDs.

Catholics having extramarital sex aren't acting within the tenants of their faith, and if they don't wear condoms it's because nobody likes to wear condoms, not because of any church teaching.

Perhaps in the eyes of the overlords, or perhaps evolution, STDs are a "feature not a bug" situation, a form population control. Reducing numbers through the attempt to increase numbers. I wonder if we should start including a Trojan constant in our population growth and decay models.
Combined with the social network clusterfuck [slashdot.org], perhaps we need a digital vaccine. Hope your not allergic to PCillin [trendmicro.com].

While on this line of thought, I would liken using Norton to wearing 8 condoms, all which having been poked with a needle, and Spybot Search & Destroy being the "Pull-Out" contraceptive method, and disconnecting from the internet altogether being like a hysterectomy. Unfortunately, we can't forget Live OneCare, which is like wrapping it with toilet paper, drinking a fifth of tequila, taking two viagras, and then wandering around Mexico City.

Diseases in general are a check on population. Not a "feature" though, at least in an evolutionary sense. Unless your population grows so big, it chokes it's own resources off and the whole population goes extinct, there's not much evolutionary advantage to limiting your numbers, at least not to the individual organism.

On a cellular basis, something like population control has evolved, but that's because when one cell overpopulates (cancer) that dooms all the cells, your melanoma isn't going to hop ship a

Howsabout people stop having unprotected sex with people with gonorrhea? I realize that people may lie about not having it or something similar, but one's policy should be use a rubber unless one is very, very certain it's safe.

A lot of people don't realize they have been sleeping with someone who has been sleeping with someone else.

I can't even count the number of people I know that are cheating, or have been cheated on. And all these people will think they are all faithful and will not use a condom, but one of them will get something and pass it along to everyone else.

My wife cheated on me once, but I was far more upset that she came back to me and didn't use a condom after god-knows-what the bitch did or didn't use with the other guy.

Oh hi. You don't have gonorrhea (again)? No? And we're using birth control pills? And we're married/together/have 3 children together/in high school so we don't think more than 3 hours into the future/are self-deluding evangelical Christians/don't really give a crap? And you would never sleep around on me? So it must be safe to have sex, then, right?

Gonorrhea (and it's fellow-traveler) chlamydia deserve some credit here - they're good at what they do, and have been for thousands of years, and will probabl

So does a good case of <insert STD here>, which can also remove a bunch of other pleasures in life, temporarily or permanently (gonorrhea is associated with infertility, and a bunch of other STD's hurt from what i've heard)

Seriously, if you are going to have unprotected sex with someone you don't know, just remember that you are going to have sex with someone who isn't adverse to having unprotected sex with someone they don't know. Proceed cautiously.

When I was a sexually active youth (back in the 60's and 70's) I managed to get the clap at least 3 times. The first time, I was in Mexico. I went to the pharmacy and got a lot of oral penicillin. Dosed myself with a couple of million units a day for a week or two. Bingo - cured. The next time, I was in the US and went to my family doctor. He prescribed some new "stronger" antibiotic for it. Guess what - it didn't work! I went back to the massive "beat it to death" penicillin doses and cured it post haste.

My philosophy when it comes to infections - hit them hard and don't let up until they are dead, dead, dead!

Technically, the proper medical procedure is, indeed :- to use the lowest powerful antibiotic (if penicillin works, use it, damn !) and only if needed (most cold are caused by viruses and don't need any)- make it really, really, really clear to the patient, that he/she had to take the antibiotics all the way until the end of the cure, until all the bacteria are clearly and definitely dead. And not stop abruptly as soon as he/she feels better.

That slows down the evolution of super-bugs.

(and in addition to what you said :- most antibiotics kill all bacteria indiscriminately, not only bugs, but the normal flora : which perturbs some normal function and leave the place free for bad yeast to rush in. So always explain to the patient which food contain good probiotics to compensate (like some yogurts) and prescribe some probiotics too (usually some good yeast) )

That's what we're taught in our medical education.The only problems comes into getting the correct choice of the lowest denomination antibiotics.- On one hand, hospitals have proven and tested recommendation (based on tests against resistance, etc.) And might even have some quick tests to predict resistance (so even when super bugs become prevalent, you can still detect which don't need the super-drug).- On the other hand, pharmaceutical companies have an agenda to push for newer (and still patented) drugs.

Hedonistic? Yes. Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure as the goal of life. I'd say sex qualifies.Narcissistic? Not necessarily, but it you're having sex without thought of the consequences - especially unprotected sex - then yes, I'd say it does.Self-Righteous? No. But being self-righteous makes you less likely to accept any criticism of your lifestyle, which is what the GP was trying to say.

All in all, those three qualities in a society makes it likely they will have lots of sex (hedonism), and in doing so

hedonism is the pursuit of everything in EXCESS. having sex is just normal not in anyway an excess.

narcissism is a far more extreme psyhcological condition then just being horny and acting on it. that'd be like calling someone narcissistic just because they took the last coke out of the fridge.

This idea that we somehow have more sex now then in the past is the biggest load of bullcrap. guess what? people fuck, your grandma had he same urges in the 1920's as you have now.
the biological drive is exac

Narcissism is a personality trait. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a psychological condition. The person who took the last coke out of the fridge would be narcissistic - to a degree. There is an element of narcissism in all of us. The OPs use of the term indicates he thought that there is an excess of narcissism in our society, not that he thought everyone was pathologically narcissis

The 2nd comment I saw in here was from some guy suggesting that using a condom and not sleeping with 'just anyone' was living a dull life. They got +4 Insightful (at the time of this writing). I'm not sure what to make of that.

Is it truly the case that in the U.S. (presumption based on the current time) condoms and/or not having sex with 'just anyone' is so disregarded as to deriding it being hailed with a "hear, hear!" ?

Sure, and hormone-soaked teenagers whose brains are still trying to develop good impulse control always think rationally and choose abstinence when a member of their preferred sex is hot to trot for them. This is why abstinence-only education has been such a rousing success everywhere it's been tried.

Hormone-soaked teenager brains already have all the physiological necessities for impulse control; what they don't have is any motivation to develop it, since excuses like the above are always made for them.

There have been several studies [nytimes.com] (third question in the interview, feel free to google for more information) showing that the areas of the brain linked to complex decision making and impulse control are still under development in the adolescent brain, and in fact continue to develop into the 20s. These findings may explain, in part, why teenagers are more prone to risky behavior (such as, say, unprotected sex) than older people. In short, studies indicate that hormone-soaked teenage brains do NOT have all the physiological necessities for impulse control.

Well, it's a good thing that you have such great discipline regarding your sexuality.

Is there anything in yourlife that you consume even though you know it's bad for you? Smoking? Any particular food? Or are you just the model of perfection with no vices whatsoever? Or do instead lead the most boring life ever, and so never have to worry about these things?

This isn't about what should or what could be. This is about the reality of things. Nobody advocating sex ed will deny that abstinence is the only

Exercise some self-discipline and keep your pecker in your pocket. No worries about broken or slipped condoms, or being overcome by the moment and not using one.

I'm confused. If one is overcome by the moment and not using a condom, doesn't that imply that self-discipline, and keeping it in a pocket has failed at least once? Your advice seems a little like "Don't be flammable, so that way you won't catch on fire and burn to death."